Trump Hopes For Obergefell Reversal [VIDEO]

Donald Trump this morning appeared on Fox News Sunday where he said he’d “strongly consider” making Supreme Court appointments that could lead to the reversal of Obergefell. Politico reports:

“It has been ruled upon. It has been there. If I’m elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change thing, but they have a long way to go,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I disagree with the court in that it should have been a states’ rights issue.” Trump has been appealing to conservative voters in Iowa during the last week and has increased his push to get voters to the caucuses on Monday night after a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll showed him leading the race by 5 percengate points.

The above-cited bit comes at 8:15 in the below clip. As you’ll see, Trump stopped well short of denouncing same-sex marriage itself, unlike the rest of his leading opponents.

  • bkmn

    ..

    • Joe in PA

      Ya know, we could use this graphic almost as much as the Easter Bunny graphic saying “Not This Asshole Again”.

      • Aaaand we have a winner!

      • Craig S

        like this?

        • Joe in PA

          That’s it Craig! So perfect. 🙂

          • Craig S

            one never tires of it

        • Traxley Launderette

          My favorite meme ever.

        • Barbara Schoenberger

          6❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsWorld/GetPaid/98$hourly .❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦.❦,❦hd..

    • PLAINTOM

      and the elephant you road in on.

    • JT

      Trump favors “traditional” marriage. Fucking someone else’s wife means he doesn’t have to worry about a prenup.

    • Paula

      with cherries and whipped cream on top!

    • David Walker

      Two today: Argentina and Italy. Music not safe for work. Or church.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_hRkHGt9J8
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VIDl4noisI

      • bkmn

        Love Lily! This is my fav Lily Allen song.

        • FAEN

          Mine as well.

      • Homo Erectus

        Thanks for posting. I never get tired of seeing that.

      • Snarkaholic
  • Austin Bennett

    I don’t understand his relationship with Fox News…

    • bzrd

      free advertising

      • Mark

        feeds his ego.

        • Bad Tom

          Abuser / Abused.
          ——-
          Not clear who is which.

    • pj

      fox tells his voters what to think.

    • Wynter Marie Starr

      Mutual masturbation.

  • radiofreerome

    I hope Trump’s next slutty Slavic mail order bride Bobbits him.

    • Todd20036

      You realize if that happens, he could wind up doing a porn movie, like Mr Bobbitt did

      Do you really want to risk it?

      • lymis

        Unlike the entirety of the Right Wing, I have working remote controls, and other mechanisms for not seeing things like that if I choose to avoid them. So sure, I’ll take the risk.

      • Joe in PA

        ok dammit, someone has to say it: IT WILL BE YUUUGE!

      • I’m pretty sure I’d pay good money for Trump and Schock to do a scat scene with Schock as the top.

        • Ginger Snap

          You Sir are a gentleman with a very filthy mind. I like that in a man.

    • bambinoitaliano

      He already behaving like one who has been bobbitized. Talker like that is never impressive in the bed room.

      • Cattleya1

        He keeps trading in for younger, more-porn-star-like trophy wives. I think he might not be able to get it up for normal women… Bobbetizing him might be an entirely satisfactory little ego adjustment for The Donald.

        • They keep looking more and more like his daughter AND are approaching her age – hmmm, makes one shudder and throw up in ones mouth just a little.

    • Wynter Marie Starr

      Let’s hope this one does. He might then be able to think a bit more like a third grader cause it isn’t his big head driving the train right now.

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      That would probably require a specialist trained in the use of specific equipment.

  • hiker_sf

    As if it will ever happen. This is just pandering. Overturning this could possibly void marriage “contracts” and all subsequent contracts based upon that marriage contract, including home purchases, businesses, etc.

    The courts will be jammed for decades with contractual issues. SCOTUS would get so much pushback for even considering to so this.

    • The Professor

      I agree. He is a pandering snake oil salesman pandering to the blithering idiot Bible pounding mouth foamers who make up the Iowa primary voters. He doesn’t give a flying shit about repealing Obergefell, even if such a thing we’re even remotely possible. Which it isn’t.

      • another_steve

        Why couldn’t/wouldn’t a theofascist-majority Supreme Court (think: more Scalias) reverse Obergefell while leaving in place any same-sex marriages finalized prior to the date of reversal?

        Is that outside the realm of the possible?

        • The Professor

          As a practical matter, highly unlikely because the path would have to be a case coming up through a state that they would agree to hear. Rights once given, are very hard to take away.

        • Chris Baker

          If the bans were reinstated as written, many of them have wording such as “the state will only recognize the union of a man and a woman…” so they could just stop recognizing them. The bans didn’t just cover the issue of marriage certificates, but the recognition of such unions. That’s why couples who married in one state then moved into a state with a ban had issues.

          I am not a lawyer, but that’s just a plain reading of the law.

          • another_steve

            So we two non-lawyers are just hypothesizing here. And that’s perfectly okay. 🙂

            I’m thinking: Theoretically, why couldn’t a really really rabid SCOTUS majority say in its reversal of Obergefell:

            “States: You must accord same-sex couples who were legally married prior to this decision of ours full recognition, wherever they travel and in what ever state they reside. But effective with this decision — and for same-sex couples that were married prior to this decision — yours laws currently on point apply, regardless of their effect on same-sex married couples.”

          • Chris Baker

            I guess that was actually the case in CA, where the Prop8 amendment stated: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” But there were existing married couples. So I don’t know how they were treated before it was overturned.

        • BudClark

          For the same reason that Prop 8 failed … rights given, then taken away, singling out a group …

      • Chris Baker

        Yes, it’s kind of tricky to get a new case, as the court was pretty clear, and state bans have been struck down. The only way would for a state to start enforcing it’s ban again. SCOTUS doesn’t usually like to rule on the same case unless it’s significantly different. And, as was pointed out, it would create quite a legal mess. The last time something similar happened was when Utah banned polygamy. But the issues were on a much smaller basis as there were far fewer polygamous relationships in existence.

        • another_steve

          “SCOTUS doesn’t usually like to rule on the same case unless it’s significantly different.”

          What about their reversal of Bowers v. Hardwick? Didn’t they just admit that they fucked up in that case?

          Why couldn’t a rabid SCOTUS majority say “We fucked up in Obergefell”?

          • Chris Baker

            Well, Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas were 17 years apart, and Lawrence expanded rights.

            It would really be hard for SCOTUS to put the toothpaste of SSM marriage back into the tube, because it affects thousands of existing marriages. Are all those marriages annulled? If not, then what would be the point, because you would still have thousands of SSM in existence. Each married gay person would have to carry around proof of the date of the marriage.

            Of course, SCOTUS can do anything it wants.

          • Chris Baker

            And, since the earlier ruling in Bowers left the sodomy laws intact, another case could be brought, challenging those existing laws again. But right now, there is nothing to challenge, on either side, unless another state (or Congress) enacts a new anti-SSM law and starts enforcing it.

    • He’s audience are the far right and this is something they would want to hear, this is what he does. With all the shit happening in the world and the US this shouldn’t be the top of their agenda. However, as a British person in the US based on my marriage to a US citizen I am thinking I should have a back up plan just in case I have to leave.

      • stuckinthewoods

        Could be worse. In the US you need a back up plan just in case you have to stay.

      • Adam King

        Some person or persons with standing would have to bring a case to the federal courts and get it all the way to the Supreme Court before it could even have a chance of overturning correctly decided precedent. That is never going to happen, because marriage equality harms no one.

    • Jonty Coppersmith

      You can buy a house together or start a business together without being married.

    • leastyebejudged

      Absolutely…

      And he knows this; and he also knows PR, and how Americans are addicted to outrage.

      He knows how to manipulate people, he’s made a career out of artfully and skillfully managing people based ont eh lowest common denominator.

      And he’s had the full assistance of the press and of politicians.

      Imagine all the things he could do once he owns them all – the press and the political system…

    • Gerry Fisher

      Everything tRump DOES is “pandering” (marketing)! There really isn’t anything else to him. Certainly not substantive policy proposals.

  • Joe in PA

    Trump stopped well short of denouncing same-sex marriage itself…. At least we have that! Talk about your damning with faint praise. 🙂

    (just being snarky…not attacking JMG!)

    • As far as I’m concerned, denouncing is exactly what he did. No sense in splitting hairs regarding bigotry.

  • Joe in PA

    Good grief, how is this NOT a litmus test for his Supreme Court noms? Don’t these fucks always talk about NOT having a litmus test? We live in a new world. ;(

    • Ninja0980

      There is no litmus test for Republican judges, only Democratic ones.
      Republicans can nominate people to the right of Hitler and Democrats MUST give them an up or down vote.

  • Seriously, let’s be grateful and thankful Donald Trump will NEVER be President of the United States. We cannot allow ANY Republican to be elected to the White House.

    • PLAINTOM

      VOTE

    • another_steve

      I assume all of the Republicans with a real shot of being their party’s nominee feel exactly as Trump does on marriage equality.

      As you suggest, if any Republican wins, marriage equality will be in danger.

      • Falconlights

        Exactly. NONE of the Republican candidates are our friends and we need to make sure none of them ever see the inside of the WH except on a tour.

        • Jimmie Z

          … and to qualify for the WH tour, they’d have to go through a metal detector, and a body cavity search.

          • Falconlights

            Yup.

        • cleos_mom

          People who think they’re making a clever statement by not voting aren’t ‘our friends’ either.

          • Falconlights

            Precisely.

      • Tallulah

        If any Republican wins, Republicans are in danger.

        • another_steve

          Lol. True.

          One pundit on TV the other day suggested that if Trump emerges from the primaries as the “winner,” the party might be better off forcing him out and thereby having him run as a third-party candidate in November.

          The reasoning goes something like this:

          If Trump is at the head of the Republican ticket in November, not only will the Republicans not win the Presidency, but Trump’s presence on the ticket will adversely affect the chances of Republicans running down-ballot (House, Senate, Governor races, etc.).

          If Trump runs as a third-party candidate, the Republicans won’t win the Presidency but the chances of those down-ballot Republicans winning would be better.

    • FAEN

      The voter ID issue still worries me. Here in NC as with many Tea Bagger run states they are putting up roadblock after roadblock when it comes to voting. Donald will benefit from this.

  • Tom G

    Pandering much! Stopped short of denouncing same sex marriage by saying he’d work to overturn SCOTUS ruling.

  • Dramphooey

    The sole result of the TEA Party movement: the most disgraceful, shameless, empty pandering ever and I mean ever seen in American politics.

  • Blobby

    besides being a dick – what makes anyone think I’m making it through 8:15 of anything this douche has to say?

    • fuzzybits

      Right on. It’s been a pretty mellow sunday and I’m not turning it into crap.

  • Blake Jordan

    He almost made it to the primaries…

  • goofy_joe

    Does he know how the court system works? You could pad the court with all Scalias right now, but unless a case comes before the court challenging the decision, they can’t simply reverse their decision.

    But of course, the nutjobs listening to him don’t care about facts.

    • canoebum

      The only court The Donald has any real knowledge of is the Federal Bankruptcy Court.

      • D. J.

        Divorce Court, too.

  • bambinoitaliano

    You can put a buddhist chant on a the telepromter, he will just ramble off the script like he’s all for it. He is a whore for selling anything to anyone who wants to buy at this point.

    • Steven Leahy

      Absolutely. That’s been his schtick all along. The only things he’s ever believed in are money, narcissism, and eastern European mail order brides.

  • Rolf

    I’m surprised his whole face, never mind his nose, isn’t brown.

  • bambinoitaliano
  • JT
  • Dot Beech

    “maybe” The mo’s would tear down Trump Tower. And deservedly so.

  • Cuberly

    Another GOPer wanting to destroy something, another day ending in Y.

    • FAEN

      It’s what they do. It’s what they always do.

  • LovesIrony

    because denying gays their civil rights is the right thing to do.

  • Rex

    I didn’t think I could like him any less, I was wrong.

  • bambinoitaliano

    One should be institutionalize as the other.

    • shellback

      Mesmerizing, and, the similarity is more than striking.

  • Balderdashing

    Openly avowing to make political appointments to the Supreme Court–there’s respecting the Constitution for ya.

  • Michael Rush

    Well i was going to vote for him but NOT NOW !!!

    • David Walker

      Yeah. This changes everything.

    • Claude Jacques Bonhomme

      Poe’s law… you’re missing the snark tag.

      • Michael Rush

        It’s a bizarre game I play . Another is at the grocery store I fill one plastic bag as full as possible to see it it breaks before I get to the car . I need a hobby .

        • Reality.Bites

          Or a closer parking space.

  • Can you imagine hundreds of thousands of marriages being nullified? My husband and I lived through ours being nullified back in 2004, along with about four thousand other gay couples who had gotten married when Gavin Newsom defied State law and opened San Francisco to gay weddings. But this was before even Massachusetts started marrying gay couples, and we all knew the chances of having our weddings overturned were high. But now? Trump would want to throw marriage equality back to the States which could then un-marry thousands of married couples and stop recognizing marriages performed in other states? And this is what would please a few thousand Iowa caucus-goers enough to pick Trump instead of some other GOP idiot? This is how our system works? Jesus, what a farce! I say forget Iowa and move the caucuses to Rancho Cucamonga! At least the weather is better.

    • We were among those couples in San Francisco in 2004, too.

      • What a day, Becca, wasn’t it! We did it on Valentine’s Day. I still love Gavin for that.

  • Overturn Obergefell = Overturn same-sex marriage itself, for hundreds of thousands of Americans, and returns us to the point where a couple’s marriage begins and ends at state lines. Hell, at that point, some states would probably feel free to enact the bigotry of making it an actual crime for a same-sex couple to get married in another locale. Maybe even a felony.

    Just like it was in 1964…only back then it was mixed-race couples.

    If marriage was legitimately a states-rights issue, anti-miscegenation laws would continue to be enforced, even today.

    • Ninja0980

      I have no doubt bigots would to turn back the clocks on both.

  • chris james

    Yes, Donald, there is nothing more pressing in American society than gay marriage, but in case you think that is true I would invite you to visit Flint, Michigan, and drink a few gallons of tap water. But since you are the poster boy for Christian adultery I think you should be dragged out behind the Trump Towers and stoned by a bunch of homeless guys.

    • Steven Leahy

      Yes, still trying to figure out how Snyder, the EPA, the city’s mayor, et al could not have figured out THIS was a problem. This is from a hospital tap.

      • Stev84

        Why are you complaining about tap fruit juice?

        • i know, right? we have a lead tree right outside, it’s beautiful in the spring and the fruit is delicious!

      • Homo Erectus

        “Water is for toilets”.

  • Necessitas

    I think this is a good example to point out that the justice system is the U.S. is a fraud. The S.C. is supposed to decided cases based on law, but we all know that it is personal ideology instead. Just one more bit of evidence that the entire shebang is a massive fraud.

  • Don’t forget folks: This is the guy who, even though he is currently married, has indicated a number of times in public that he wants to bang his own daughter.

    • Joe in PA

      Trevor Noah (the new host on the Daily Show) LOVES to bring that fact up as many times as he can. If it weren’t so sad, it would be hilarious.

      • I know, hence the phrasing I used.

    • TampaDink

      Not that it makes the statement sound any less creepy, I believe that he made that statement when he was between marriages two & three. That doesn’t excuse him & I sure as hell am not defending him.

  • Jimmie Z

    This oughta make The Donald popular with teh gehz.

    • Max_1

      Anybody butt rump

  • FAEN

    Pandering to the ignorant homophobes might win you the primary Dinald but that kind of BS won’t fly in a general.

    • Joe in PA

      oh please, oh please….

      • FAEN

        LOL!

  • dcurlee

    So when he first started he stated he would not interfere with the decision now he’s saying this…..you are nothing but a pandering fuckwad

  • RainbowPhoenix

    Anyone still considering sitting out or voting third party next election?

  • and yet, the LCD are all “hilary used to not support gays!” yeah, well, none of your potential-leaders support us either, and neither do your lousy republican family members.

  • Steven Leahy

    He’d sell out his own mother if it meant an election win.

  • Wynter Marie Starr

    Let’s go back to making divorce illegal and then retroactively put this schmuck in jail for bigamy. Seriously, he can go fuck off and take his (according to his evangelical ass kissers) mistress with him.

    • D. J.

      Put Quimmie in his cell, too.

  • Ryan Hunter

    Let’s not follow the Constitution but let’s politicize every thing. That will totally destroy this Republic which I think is the goal of the GOP morons.

  • Michael Rush

    Is there anything he says that he hasn’t said the
    opposite of somewhere else ?

  • olandp

    Didn’t the Iowa Supreme Court overturn that state’s law banning same-sex marriage with a scathing opinion that got the ball rolling? I do believe it did. States rights.

  • Falconlights

    If BS like this doesn’t get you out to vote in Nov., then I don’t know what will.

  • j.martindale
  • Ninja0980

    Here’s the thing folks, they won’t be able to overturn this ruling but the right CAN appoint judges that will blunt if as much as possible.
    You want your marriage license?
    I won’t give it to you because of “religious freedom”, you’ll have to drive 100 miles to another county to get it.
    Alito has already hinted he would be more then happy to uphold those kinds of laws and if any Republican gets into office this fall, he will appoint judges to SCOTUS and the circuit and district courts who will help him along.
    Get out and vote this fall folks, our future truly does depend on it.

  • coram nobis

    Well of course the Donald believes in traditional marriage, and practices it. One man and what, four trophy wives now? At least he’s upbeat about it. What do you call it, pollyanna-ry?

    • j.martindale

      Trophy wives? He didn’t “win” them, he bought them. There is another name for that, I believe…

    • Stev84

      And wanting to fuck his daughter. Also very biblical.

      • Jarkko Ala-Pakkanen

        Actually that is quite “biblical” also, ironically. As in the essence at least. You know saying something is (“so old its) biblical” and unfortunately incest was very “normal”, culturally accepted, and common those days and times before that. Mainly the reason why its forbideen in bible. Of course, as said, saying ” old as biblical” is quite a oxymoran itself, as it quite New thing also if thought in contrast of who long people have been “out there”.so theres not so much ” traditional ” stuff in that book anyway in that sense.

    • Jarkko Ala-Pakkanen

      Well, the problem of the consept of “trad marriage” and con rethorics ia that they just understand it completely wrong. Or want to understand it that way. Polygamy is indeed much More “traditional” than monogamy which is quite New social norm. They want “traditional marriage”? Okay lets, bring the (sex) slaves and sheeps back! And lets restart the (child) “wife” trade with farm animals. Cause that is “traditional marriage”. Oh, you DONT WANT that? Then dont talk about ” traditional marriage”. “Traditional” doesnt make it good and you cant just invent New meanings to things to serve your polirical purpose like that that “marriage” which have existed for 200-300 years would mean its “traditional” as its existed for thousands of years. latter one is “traditional” and “original”. First not so much, a modern and unfounded consept like SSM. Still not obviosly worse than ” traditional” with child “wifes”, harems and forced marriages to be sold as ones sex slave. As said, traditional doesnt necessarily mean its “good” or modern bad”.

    • Homo Erectus

      Kim Davis will be #4.

  • canoebum

    The rights of states are fairly limited to those not specified in the Constitution. Unfortunately for those who want to use a “state’s rights” argument to void marriage equality, Due Process and Equal Protection for All Persons are specified in the Constitution, so all your 10th Amendment notions don’t apply. Next.

    • Joe in PA

      The states rights bullshit is such pathetic canard for federal level pols to hide behind.

      • Stev84

        For any politicians really

    • Chucktech

      He either knows this or his staff will inform him.

    • Jarkko Ala-Pakkanen

      And as we have seen, especially this kind of social issues, “right” to for example SSM is in constitutional pov completely in the eyes of decider. For 50 years “Sodomy” was not constitutionally protected, even in still 90’s Scotus made decisions that considered homosexuality something that doesn’t deserve protection of the LAW like hetero sex did and do, “Sodomy” laws were “found” unconstitutional as late as 2003 AND the same question was thought AT LEAST 2 TIMES before that, in quite late time, 80’s, and both times “anti-sodomy” laws were “found” constitutional. So its completely based on who makes the decisions, not what stand in the constitution. Unfortunately. And this is not the only issue like that. So you shouldn’t trust so much courts doing the right thing.

    • I’ve never heard of a single proponent of ‘states rights’ who wasn’t invoking it in order to make legal the oppression and discrimination of a minority.

  • ByronK

    Instead of just being on the wrong side of history, he’s on the wrong fucking planet.

  • SFBruce

    I hope this puts to rest the notion any remotely reasonable person might have that between Trump and Cruz, Trump is the lesser of the two evils. They’re both black holes of evil. If Trump decides demonizing LGBT people will help him politically, he won’t hesitate to tell the same kind of of lies about us he already has about women, hispanics and Muslims.

    • PLAINTOM

      I have to disagree. Trump is an opportunist but Cruz is a true believer. Trump will use us to get to The White House but Cruz will use the White House to get to us.

      • SFBruce

        I think your characterization of Cruz as a true believer and Trump as an opportunist is right, but that’s why I think they pose the same degree of threat. We already know Cruz would do everything he can to stick it to us, including overturning Obergefell if he can, but it’s Trump’s opportunism lacking any guiding political ideology that makes him an enormous danger as well. The second he thinks demonizing us would work for him politically is the second he starts demonizing us. Of course, there’s a way to avoid all this and that is to make sure every left-leaning person we know votes for the Democratic nominee.

    • Jarkko Ala-Pakkanen

      As this is deeply insulting move from Donfather, and his political “statements” seem to mostly (altrough most of them are just name calling or so extreme “plans”” so they fortunately are unusable, like muslim ban EVEN IN THE US, in the land of extremes, but this actually is something what could be done IF theres political will and demand for that, and there seems to be), this is also one of the most intresting Tramps idea as its feasible. Most people dont give a shit about gays and their rights, rest of them want take all of them, especially SSM away from them and then smallest group of these people are actually ready and willing to support gay rights, meaning doing anything other than just saying they “support” them and idiots think they would do something to “support” them when its needed and then are amazed when those rights are taken away, as they really belived that all those “supporters” would REALLY “supported” them. These yesmen, “allies” were the problem originally, they supported discrimination or at least let it happen. And its idiotic think people, the society would have changed just because we live another time, IT HASNT. People shouldn’t be trusted when THEIR lifes and Privilidges are not in danger and politicians even less. They are only INTRESTED in those and everything else is meaningless. So, as this is one of the few things that Tramp has promised/bringed up as his agenda what can be implemented, IF he gets elected he REALLY could do that. And in that way as its bad thing its also quite intresting to follow. Little bit like betting with large sums for unlikely competiror. But I wouldnt be so confident that dems wouldnt stabb in the back in this issue either. SSM is after all very upto very little its even legal now. Its just little bit over half of Americans do agree with it. So there are much enemies, much supporters for overturning very recent Obergefell decision. And UNLIKE the “surporters” of SSM, many of them WOULD ACTUALLY DO something to make it be like want it to be. Also, cause SSM affects such little group of people even in the starting point, its not same thing than Roe v. Wade which affects to even pontetially much larger group of people, as most of them belong to big majority, straight women. So its possible that IF moderate cons will be nominated and confirmed to scotus it could go also in that way that they would repeal Obergefell but let RvW alone. Tramp probably for example wouldnt touch Roe but IF Obergefell would increase his popularity, hfor exmple ypothethically he would have been elected and he was seeking for secound term, I know, terrible thought but could this happen, why wouldnt he play that card? Theres no reason why not.

      • Ray Taylor

        Do you talk like that too?

  • oikos

    When will LCR endorse him?

    • What does it matter? They will endorse whomever the GOP candidate is, even if it was ex-Senator Frothy. (Not in the realm of possibility, but I’m sure you get what I’m saying.)

      The Log Cabin Republicans always claim not to be “single issue voters” — only in their case, it seems to be having no problem with a party that doesn’t even want them in it and which consistently calls for all gay rights to be repealed.

      • Jarkko Ala-Pakkanen

        I think they infact are complete SINGLE ISSUE VOTERS. And that only criteria is just to choose the biggest anti-gay candidate. Its CERTANLY single issue voting. Its just against themselves but that seems to be the point. Bushes 2th term no-endorsment had to be mistake, some idiots who didnt now how it REALLY goes in the Lock cabin made it happen. Altrough I dont even understand tha who they think to give a shit about their “endorsments”? GOP CERTANLY couldn give less shit about Lock cabin and their worthless ” opinions” in anyway, and non-gopers EVEN less than that. So to who is this directed to? To other selfloathing faggots?

    • Joe in PA

      …said in my best Trump voice: LOSERS!

      • Jarkko Ala-Pakkanen

        “They’re terrible!”

    • Jarkko Ala-Pakkanen

      When they hear what Tramp have promised they will go head over heels to endorse him. But I guess they are wating for a while to get the best anti-gay ofer they can get.

  • Jeffg166

    I hope he doesn’t go out to restaurants to eat a lot. I can’t imagine what gets put into his food.

  • trump’s people just skim the internets for key words and make “policy statements” out of the most popular ones. it’s effective with the neadertal crowd and internet trolls, who are of course his base. the funny part will be when tRump, if selected, goes back on half or more of the nonsense he’s spouted during the campaign. i srsly doubt he gives a fuck about gays one way or the other and wouldn’t expend much capital on the issue. he’ll have a hard enough time getting what he wants, let alone pleasing people once in office. trump is one of those people who probably wouldn’t lash out at someone making gay bashing jokes, but wouldn’t make them himself either.

    • Chirstop

      Right on!

  • TampaZeke

    Oh yeah, he stopped short of full denouncement of marriage equality. He’s a real friend to the LGBT community. We should all rush right out and vote for him!

    After all, as LCR will be sure to tell us, “he doesn’t really mean the anti-gay things he says. He just says those things to get elected, AND RE-ELECTED. After he’s out of office he’ll “evolve” “like Obama did”.”

    • Yeah… only we’ve watched the Republican party and its candidates devolve over the years and decades.

    • Chirstop

      Pleassssssssssssssssse Mary!

  • DaddyRay

    I am sure Trump is VERY interested in appointing Supreme Court justices but I have a feeling this issue is very far from the deciding qualification for a judicial nominee

    • BudClark

      He wants pro-business, anti-tax … he doesn’t give a fuck on a Friday about gay civil rights.

  • Chirstop
    • Homo Erectus

      He sees us as a throw-away.

  • 2patricius2

    My bet that he gets the support of the Log Cabin Republicants.

  • delk

    Give me a break. The only fools believing this slice of pander also believe in magical sky daddies.

    • waving hi!!

      • delk

        Howdy!

  • D. J.

    There are no GOP candidates that wouldn’t do that. Hey Log Cabin, whatcha got to say now?

  • GanymedeRenard

    Are we sure Ivanka’s baby isn’t Donald’s?

  • Greg B.

    Yeah it’s on, you hypocritical, thrice-married, adulterous douchebag.

  • GayOldLady

    You’re never going to be POTUS Donald so no need to be promising things you can’t deliver.

  • bryan

    Fortunately Trump as President will only ever be a halloween costume. So he will have time to spend on his third traditional marriage….

    • Leo Tallant

      I found his Halloween costume….

  • DesertSun59

    It would be completely impossible to ‘unmarry’ anyone by force.

  • coram nobis

    “… a traditional marriage of two Corinthians. In leather.”

    • oikos

      Rich Corinthians?

    • Homo Erectus
      • Homo Erectus

        Did you know Chrysler just made that up?

        Although the Cordoba name was generally thought to be taken from the
        Spanish city, the car’s emblem was actually a stylized version of the
        Argentine cordoba coin. Either way, the implication was Hispanic, and
        this theme was carried out with somewhat baroque trim inside and by
        having Mexican movie star Ricardo Montalban as the car’s advertising
        spokesman. Many remember his eloquent praise of its “rich Corinthian
        leather” interior (“Corinthian leather” was a meaningless term invented
        for the purpose, but has since come to designate leather with a vinyl
        surface treatment that requires little care). – Wikipedia

  • Sam_Handwich

    this douchebag is driving the GOP right off a cliff

    • Gianni

      I see your words as that scene in Thelma and Louise. Love it.

  • millers3888

    Of course Trump is going to say this, he’s appealing to conservatives. We all know he isn’t against gays the guy practically ran NYC and there was never evidence of homophobia. Out of all the candidates with the exception of Kasich, Trump doesn’t worry me when it comes to gay rights.

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      There was also an item in the news today where Trump kind of slipped up and admitted that the whole wall-along-the-Mexican-border thing was not serious and a stunt to “wake up a sleepy audience.” So, with Trump, it’s hard to know when he’s serious and when it’s just pure show business.

      Even so, I wouldn’t trust Trump to do the right thing on any issue except by accident or benign neglect, because the only thing Donald Trump cares about is Donald Trump.

      • FAEN

        IMHO the GOP establishment prefer Trump to Cruz as he is definitely more pliable than the Commie Cannuck(no offense to my Cannuck brothers and sisters whom I love)

  • Richard Rush

    Trump wants to reverse Obergefell . . . because people with a history of multiple failed marriages desperately need to target other people as being less qualified for marriage than they are.

  • Gianni

    Seriously, Trump couldn’t give a rat’s ass about equal marriage rights. He’s stumping for votes from the heavenly crowd and they leap on this like lions at a kill.

  • Ginger Snap

    Trump now pandering to the findies.

    • Homo Erectus

      Dropping drawers for jezus.

  • Basically, he didn’t say anything, except for the remark about states’ rights, which only shows that he has no clue as to what the issues were before the supreme court.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Remember kids, whether it’s Bernie or Hillary, vote for the party that isn’t considering this idiot.

    • houstonray

      Amen!!!

  • dmichaelkny

    Does he even believe the things he says? He really is taking all these evangelical voters for a ride.

    • Stuart Wyman-Cahall

      No. He’s not. You dance with whomever brought you there. “W” probably didn’t enjoy sticking it to gay folks. His own veep was for marriage equality. You give Trump a Republican house and senate he’ll show the LGBT community EXACTLY what the “art of the (raw) deal” is.

    • Homo Erectus

      You’re new here – welcome to the family!

      • dmichaelkny

        Thanks!

  • teedofftaxpayer

    This election is not just about what President runs the country for the next 4-8 years but also who they will appoint on the Supreme Court. You get a Republican Congress, a Republican President and you will get screwed with a Conservative Supreme Court who will reverse EVERYTHING.

    I know a Supreme Court can not just reverse, but you can bet once the Conservative court is in place, there will be suit to get to the Supreme Court to overturn same sex marriages, Roe vs Wade and ObamaCare.

  • DaveMiller135

    “If I’m elected…”
    Thanks for the heads up.

  • Homo Erectus

    Donald, honey – what a stoopid thing to say. Do you think you could also have Loving v. Virginia overturned? Can states just un-marry everyone?

  • JeepRocks87

    That why I will not vote republicans at all.

  • Quadrillion

    Now it’s on.

  • Max_1
  • Max_1
  • Max_1
  • Max_1

    Factchecker: Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street/Iowa contributions
    http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/fact-check/factchecker-hillary-clintons-wall-streetiowa-contributions-20160129

    “Hillary Clinton has gotten 54 times more money from Wall Street interests than from all of Iowa. Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multimillionaire. Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”

    Source of claim: American Crossroads, a GOP Super PAC founded by Karl Rove, former deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to President George W. Bush, makes the claim in a 30-second ad airing in Iowa this month.

    That said, Fact Checker scores the two claims measured in the American Crossroads ad an A.

  • Jim

    So much for any commitment to impartial justice from Donald Trump. How can anybody who believes in the rule of law support Donald Trump?

  • Barbara Schoenberger

    6❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsWorld/GetPaid/98$hourly .❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦,❦.❦,❦hd

  • Gene Perry

    Seriously … ?

  • Boy Elvis

    Mike Signorile wrote a knockout article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gays-for-trump-log-cabin-republicans_b_9128882.html) on how the Log Cabin Republicans have suddenly gone quiet on Trump, and oh hey, look who showed up in the Facebook comments! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, people…

  • Gerry Fisher

    He’s been smart enough to downplay any homophobia so far. We’re organized, and we put money and effort behind political organizing. It’s telling that he waited until the eve of the caucuses to drop these charming quotes.